Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

Gay Marriage, What Does Our Constitution Say?

With all the talk about the pro’s and con’s about gay marriage I would like to open a discussion regarding what our Constitution says about it.

Does the Constitution forbid gay marriage?

No.

Does the Constitution allow gay marriage?

No.

How can that be?

The answer is actually very simple. As I tried to put forth in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties,” the Constitution does not mention marriage. In fact, the Constitution does not discuss any issues concerning morality. The Constitution and therefore the federal government is not allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage and when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As I wrote in my book:

“The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs. It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian. It does not say anything about marriage, nor does the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not say these things because these are moral issues, and the Bill of Rights was not written to address moral issues. The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not a moral ones.

Moral issues are covered by an individual’s conscience and religion and by laws passed by local or state communities and can change as the moral culture changes, for better or for worse. What I mean is, from the federal government’s perspective, moral issues are not addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and ergo those issues are off limits to the federal government.

Over time, as morality changes, it is the laws enacted by the people at the community, county, and state level that are intended to handle changes in moral values. If the people of California vote to approve or ban gay marriage, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to intervene for or against it. Marriage is not a political freedom issue. Likewise, the federal government has not been granted the power to impose itself upon any state policy regarding murder, robbery, drugs, or any other issue of moral law.

Therefore it is given:

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the states’ and the people’s political freedom from a federal government, and the Bill of Rights is not a moral values document.”

Before any of you start yelling at me, please think about what our Constitution is and does. It defines our freedom and protects us from a tyrannical government. That is, if we follow that great document.

So, what does our Constitution say? It says, via the Tenth Amendment, that the States and the People of those states should decide what they want to do about gay marriage without any interference from the federal government.

1. This particular posting clarifying that ‘gay marriage’, as a concept, is outside the Constitution didn’t surprise me.
I see the Constitution as having been compiled by a bunch of people from different communities – some more powerful than others – trying to foresee the sort of things that might prove troublesome for their “United States”.
Homosexuality, a bit like intercourse with animals, was probably something they had all heard about or experienced, but they didn’t see ‘marriage’ as a likely problem. No doubt in the future some people will want legalisedunions with their dogs or cats – especially if it brings a tax advantage
…. The number of adoptions of lesbian women over the years must have shown
the trend ….

2. On the more general topic – I also think that – throughout the
compilation of the Constitution the compilers were a group of people
representing states, without opposition from another group of people
representing ‘The Federal Government’, as such, so it’s a relatively short
and ‘clean’ document – as you demonstrate.

The starting point was ‘What we don’t want a Federal Government to have
power to do’, whilst, almost separately, designing the Federal Government’s
role or their expectations of what it would do for them.

It is not surprising that Obama – and I’m sure his predecessors – see it as
restricting – that’s why it exists….

In today’s climate, where ‘Federal arrangements’ are breaking down all over
the world it’s no surprise that you and others are saying what you are –
with , in this case, powerful documentation to support you.

admin

Gordon,
While the two comments you make are bluntly stated, your point that our forefathers were aware of homosexuality and “something they had all heard about or experienced, but they didn’t see ‘marriage’ as a likely problem,” actually supports my contention that the Constitution was not intended to be a moral document from conception. Otherwise they could have outlawed things like homosexual acts from the beginning.

I believe they wanted America and Americans to be a moral values country and people just as I believe they wanted Americans to believe in God. I believe they wished that all Americans embrace the Bible.
BUT
They didn’t want morality dictated at the federal level. I believe, in their minds, they wanted the people to legislate morality at the community level and then the State level without any interference from the federal government. That is why I believe when the Federal Government makes any attempt to forbid “God” our Nativity scenes in our public schools or anywhere, The Federal Government is misconstruing and abusing the responsibility and authority given to it by the States via the Constitution.

I believe the Constitution wants the Federal Government to stay MUTE on all issues of morality and the Supreme Court was wrong when they allowed decisions on contraceptives, abortion, homosexual acts and the rest. Those decisions were intended for the People and the States.

In Point 2 you really hit the nail on the head:

“2. On the more general topic – I also think that – throughout the compilation of the Constitution the compilers were a group of people representing states, without opposition from another group of people representing ‘The Federal Government’”

You are right, there was no one in the room representing “The Federal Government,” there couldn’t be. It had not yet been created. “The Federal Government,” was the result of many debates by our forefathers and there were undoubtedly some in the room that wanted a stronger central government, but the contract that was finally agreed to and signed by the States created “The Federal Government,” upon completion of our that contract between the States, The United States Constitution.

As Thomas Jefferson Stated in Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but…by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers,…and…whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party…”

I again agree with your statement:

“The starting point was ‘What we don’t want a Federal Government to have power to do’, whilst, almost separately, designing the Federal Government’s role or their expectations of what it would do for them.”

The starting point was ‘What we don’t want a Federal Government to have power to do.’ It was their intention while forming the Constitution, but only when they wrote The Bill of Rights did they insure the rights of the People and the States.

And Finally
“It is not surprising that Obama – and I’m sure his predecessors – see it as restricting – that’s why it exists….”

Exactly, that’s why our Constitution exists.

Joe Lang

You are correct, but most people today lack any understanding of the limits that the Constitution placed on the Federal government. Hopefully, your book will open some eyes, but with the current administration, and the messed up media we have a long road to recovery. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz seem most likely to make a difference.

Normality in Society

“To be successful any society must establish the parameters for what is “normal” behavior. Liberals have blurred the parameters to such an extent that nothing is considered abnormal behavior.

“In every society there are also percentages that are genius, above average, average, below average, idiots and imbecile’s. We have achieved, via various “rights” propositions, a society where the imbecile’s, idiot’s and below average are in positions of authority. They have infiltrated our entertainment, our schools, our universities, and our government. They are typically called Liberals. It’s time to right our ship.”

You Know The Rules

Speak Up America, SUAnews, C Howard Diaz, SUAnews.com, and the logo/avatar is protected by copyright, use is not permitted. Suanews/SUA is not responsible for any comments made by members of the DisQus comment system or any other system. When you comment or post on the Speak Up America or the SUAnews.com website or blog page you are agreeing any of your material deemed vulgar and/or offensive may be used as evidence against you in any court of law. When posting on SUA you also agree the moderator may edit your comment as he see’s fit. You also agree anything you post or email to SUA may be used by the owner of SUA as he sees fit. This is a privately owned website and you are a guest when you post. Your guest status may be revoked by the owner at his discretion.

You know the rules, they are the same as any other honest blog site so keep it clean and no racial slurs. We do not want anyone bringing any arguments from other blogs to this blog so please keep it to a minimum. We don’t want anyone talking down anyone on another site and mentioning anyone by name, but we understand at times a certain amount of venting is required and will be allowed. However asking why another person was banned is not allowed. All that does is stir the pot. It is automatically assumed there was a good reason.
While we welcome new posters, we do not appreciate posters who are not regulars to join us and start arguments. I will ban anyone I think is doing that. Foul language or porn pictures gets them banned immediately.

I really don’t like being put in any position where it appears I am exerting any authority. SO, having said that I’m going to modify the NO CUT AND PASTE policy. Comments are welcome, links are welcome, BUT repeated cutting and pasting more than one paragraph are not welcome. I would like you to moderate yourself and I’m taking the MOD SQUAD out of the loop. BUT, Moderators are allowed to remove any additional paragraphs without any prior notice, so please don’t ramble on.
I’m asking you to monitor yourself, please work with us.

Moderators will not referee any conversations between any of you nor will they make any judgement except for Porn and blatant use of Foul Language. Moderators may not use the word “Warning” at any time.

_______________________________

THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE SITE SO CONSERVATIVE’S MAY DISCUSS CONSERVATIVE IDEAS AND CONSERVATIVE VALUES. WE CAN DISAGREE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, BUT BASHING HIM FOR BASHING’S SAKE WON’T BE TOLERATED.

LIBERAL’S MAY POST AT YOUR OWN RISK, BUT WILL NOT BE WELCOME IF ALL YOU DO IS ACT LIBERAL

Global Warming Video

SNARK CHART

Funny, F 1-10

Mean, M 1-10

Gushy G 1-10

Violins V 1-10

Truth, T 1-10

Agree A, 1-10

Disagree, D 1-10

Why the Left Lies

I. Credibility

All Lies are designed to seem true. The expert liar carefully uses elements that seem probable and logical and are therefore easy to believe. On the other hand, The Truth is often illogical, wildly improbable and hard to explain.

Lies are more believable than The Truth.

II. Reliability

The Truth is spontaneous, accidental and unpredictable. Lies, however, can be planned in detail long in advance and are thus guaranteed to turn out as predicted.

Lies are more dependable than The Truth.

III. Economy

To be The Truth, an account of a given event must be com­pletely accurate. This requires painstaking resourcefulness, expen­sive research, time-consuming attention to detail, complex logistics and thoroughness. In spite of all that, some people will believe it and others will not. A Lie will produce identical results without all the fuss and bother.

Lies are simpler than Truth; Lies cost less than Truth in time, money and effort.

IV. Value

The Truth can be found anywhere; it belongs to anybody who finds it, absolutely free. Lies are custom-made, often by experts, and the best ones are highly polished works of art.

Lies are worth more money than Truth. Have you ever heard of anybody bribing a witness to tell The Truth?

V. Respectability

a. Great fortunes have been made by selling Lies to the pub­lic. The people who sell these Lies are often grateful to the gullible consumers, so they endow libraries and universities and cultural centers.

b. Nobody ever made a fortune selling The Truth. First of all, as already stated, The Truth is free. The only people who will pay money for The Truth are people who are being blackmailed-and they are only buying The Truth so they can hide it before anybody else sees it.

Lies lead to libraries and universities, while The Truth leads to blackmail.

VI.Stability

Take one thousand parts Truth, add one part Lie. Result: a Lie.

Take one-thousandth part Lie, add one part Truth. Result: again, a Lie.

Note that you can make a Lie out of The Truth, but you can’t make The Truth out of a Lie.

Lies are stronger and last longer than The Truth.

VII. Imagination

In reporting The Truth, a person must research the precise facts and stick to them exactly as they occurred. The liar can report the same incident without doing any research, merely saying whatever comes to his mind and filling in the “details” according to his cause.

Lies are more creative than the Truth.

VIII. Recognizability

People are accustomed to hearing Lies all the time.

If you tell The Truth, people will think you are lying. If you convince them you are telling The Truth, they will become suspicious. Why is he suddenly telling The Truth? What’s going on?

VIX. Supply and Demand

A. In describing any given incident, only one version can possibly be The Truth, whereas the number of Lies possible is unlimited. Obviously Lies are in far greater supply than Truth.

B. There is a great demand for Lies, if they are flattering, if they build up one’s hopes, if they help one escape reality or if they promise health, wealth, power or potency. Nobody is very anxious to hear The Truth. The only people who demand The Truth are those who are investigating something (lawyers, etc.)-and they only want The Truth to prove somebody is lying.

Lies are the acceptable medium of exchange in our society. They are in good supply and the demand for them remains strong. The Truth is in extremely short supply, but even this tiny supply far exceeds the demand. Thus, in our society, Truth occupies a position identical to that of dinosaur shit.